By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

general council of JUWATA As already pointed our, however, the report of theprobe team was submitted not to the appointing authority, the general council ofJUWATA, but to the KUBK. It is quite apparent that the general council ofJUWATA and the KUBK are two different bodies the former has two to threehundred members while the latter comprises 20 to 30 members only. The twobodies also differ in their functions The general council of JUWATA supervisesthe affairirs of the W.D.C while the KUBK is under the general council and dealswith matters of day-to-day administration.Where a person raise the defence of qualified privilege on the ground that he hadduty to make the offending statement in must further be shown that the statementwas made in good faith and that the person to whom it was made had acorresponding interest and duty to receive it. Admittedly in the instant case theprobe team made the defamatory statements in the performance of the dutyimposed on it by the general council of JUWATA, and it was common ground thatthese statements were made without malice. But the question is whatcorresponding interest and duty did the KUBK have to receive the report? Thereport was ordered by the general council and was expressly required to besubmitted to that body. The circumstances leading to the KUBK receiving thereport are not at all apparent. The KUBK was not shown to be the discipliningauthority of the appellant, and certainly it was not authority vested with the powerof appointing or termination the services of the appellant; on the evidence suchpowers were vested in the board of directors of the W.D.C. It seems plaintherefore, that the probe report was wrongly published to members of the KUBKwhen they were not supposed to receive it i.e. when they had not correspondentsinterest and duty to receive it and to that extent the defence of qualified privilegecannot succeedAs regards the issue of termination the appellant’s employment, there was clearevidence that this was done by the board of directors of W.D.C. The appellantconcedes that this was the proper authority to exercise that power, but hiscomplaint is that he was afforded no opportunity to be heard by that body beforethe latter terminated him/ In dismissing the appellant’s claim the trial judge took354